I think I've lost my way.

[Grogg of the North]

I'm both a player and a DM. The way the group is working right now is that I run a game one session and a player in the game I run is a DM for another game. We alternate who runs their game. I find that if I consistently DM I burn out quickly.

In the game I am running, I set out that we'd use the Core 3 and the first 4 completes. Anything else would be judged on a case by case basis.

I've spoken with the group and with the problem player in particular. The group finds his meta-gaming annoying to various degrees. I think I'm frustrated by it the most.

And when I spoke to him about his character in the game I run his response was "I'm not playing a cleric or wizard, so its okay to do this". He saw nothing wrong with his character having an AC at least 5 points higher than everyone else (yet never attempted to draw attention of the attackers to himself), trying to be permanently invisible (to the point that it disrupted the game for other players), frequently re-calculated his turn to make sure he got the most out of his movement/actions and lamenting that his standard attack only did 5d6. And so now I regrettably find myself viewing every request with suspicion.

As for the rule-lawyering, two players don't seem to care either way while the other two are much more focused on them. I'd honestly rather just rule on the spot and come back to it later. And I'd certainly don't want to spend 30 minutes while the GM and another player argue about the physics behind a falling book and whether or not the book is damaged by the fall or how many books (taken purely for metagame reasons) can fit on a tarp. If the humongous creature picks up the small one and tosses him across the room, awesome. Who cares about the feats, checks and number of actions used?

I don't know ... the more I think about it I wonder if I'm the problem.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Try running a session without rules entirely.

 

[Ampolitor]

rules

I am in the same boat, I think its because the new norm are games that are rules heavy. I tried D&D 3.5 and 4, but after some time I felt like there was no fun anymore, our 4e group folded after about 6 sessions. The combat was too long, the games are just getting too technical now. Companies are trying to push out hug tomes with rules for every possible scenario. Have you tried the old hackmaster? I heard labyrinth lord is good, Im going to try that out but I'm done with D&D 4th, Ill check out D&D next but with Monte no longer there I'm not expecting anything grand.

 

[Argyle King]

So many years ago I started playing D&D. It was great. I joined a group in college; none of us really knew the rules but we had fun. We made decisions on the spot about rules. We didn't care if our choices were optimized. No matter what happened, we did our best to not say "No" when "Yes, but it will be difficult" would do. We just played and had fun.

But time marches on and the old group has graduated and gone their separate ways. I've found other groups and for the most part they've been good. But with each new group I've been with, the rules have taken more precedence. Character and role-playing have taken a back seat to power. And now I find myself saying "No" more and more often; becoming afraid that some of my players are cobbling together some sort of multi-class monster that I won't see coming until its too late.

And so I sit here now, staring at my campaign notes, wishing that there was some way for me to recapture the games of old. When I wouldn't have to sit at the table and listen to the GM and two players argue about the physics behind a falling book for a half hour. When no one cared what your classes were, so long as you were having fun.

Maybe I'm just nostalgia blind. But I'm curious what advice you have to give me enworld. What can I do?

You could try a different* system. Perhaps you haven't lost your way, and -instead- you have not yet found the way which is right for you.

*non-d20 family

 

[Lord Pendragon]

He saw nothing wrong with his character having an AC at least 5 points higher than everyone else

I actually wouldn't have a problem with this myself as a DM. Unless he's purposefully using munchkin builds or something (1 level of 3 classes plus certain prestige class, etc. etc.) I see no reason to punish a player for building their character efficiently. For some players (myself included, I'll admit) that's part of the fun.

It sounds like you're an experienced DM, so I won't go into the ways you can challenge a character with a higher AC...is the reason this is a problem for you a matter of principle of some sort? You say the rest of the group finds this "varying degrees of annoying"...is he disrupting the game during play somehow? Or are they merely annoyed that his character has a greater combat proficiency than they do?

Regarding the rules lawyering, what you prefer (table rule with later adjustment as needed) is how we've always run it too. Obviously you can do that during your turn GMing. Perhaps a private email or somesuch to the other GM could get him to follow something similar? Unless he enjoys the rules discussions at the table, I'd think he'd be amenable to keeping the game moving along. Perhaps he simply doesn't realize when he's getting sucked into it?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

And when I spoke to him about his character in the game I run his response was "I'm not playing a cleric or wizard, so its okay to do this".

The DM isn't enjoying the game, and is considering quitting. So, no, it's not OK.

I'd tell the group flat out that you're unhappy and need a change or you're going to hand off DMing to someone else. Either way, the problem will get resolved.

 

[Celebrim]

And so I sit here now, staring at my campaign notes, wishing that there was some way for me to recapture the games of old.

Sure, toss out all the rules, expansions, and so forth. Core rules only. Add back in only what you know you can control.

When I wouldn't have to sit at the table and listen to the GM and two players argue about the physics behind a falling book for a half hour.

This disfunctionality isn't exclusive to the modern game. I can remember arguments like that from way back when. Sometimes, it's necessary to remind people that all this debate is getting in the way of having fun.

When no one cared what your classes were, so long as you were having fun.

Quite often, when people are debating the physics of falling books, it's because they aren't having fun. Often debates like that are proxy debates between a gamer that feels disempowered by the DM, and a DM who has come to fear the player. Deescalate. If it matters which way up the book lands that much, then your game is two finally balanced on single outcomes. Often that is the result of offense badly outclassing defence, which is the usual result of power creep. Do you have power creep at this table?

Maybe I'm just nostalgia blind. But I'm curious what advice you have to give me enworld. What can I do?[/QUOTE]

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'm both a player and a DM. The way the group is working right now is that I run a game one session and a player in the game I run is a DM for another game. We alternate who runs their game. I find that if I consistently DM I burn out quickly.

I'm the same way.

And when I spoke to him about his character in the game I run his response was "I'm not playing a cleric or wizard, so its okay to do this". He saw nothing wrong with his character having an AC at least 5 points higher than everyone else (yet never attempted to draw attention of the attackers to himself), trying to be permanently invisible (to the point that it disrupted the game for other players), frequently re-calculated his turn to make sure he got the most out of his movement/actions and lamenting that his standard attack only did 5d6. And so now I regrettably find myself viewing every request with suspicion.

Do you have a retro-ban policy? Like a simple "I reserve the right to nerf or ban stuff that becomes problematic" rule. I find that having a retro-ban rule puts me at ease, so I can focus on DMing rather than worrying about some charop build that might jump out and wreck the game.

As for the rule-lawyering, two players don't seem to care either way while the other two are much more focused on them. I'd honestly rather just rule on the spot and come back to it later. And I'd certainly don't want to spend 30 minutes while the GM and another player argue about the physics behind a falling book and whether or not the book is damaged by the fall or how many books (taken purely for metagame reasons) can fit on a tarp. If the humongous creature picks up the small one and tosses him across the room, awesome. Who cares about the feats, checks and number of actions used?

Well the problem is easily solved when you're in the DM seat. Just start the next session with an announcement: "There will be no 30 minute, or even ten minute rule discussions. When disagreements come up, I'll give everyone one minute to make their case and then I'll make a call. You don't like it, write me an email after the game."

When the other guy is DMing, you might just have to tough out these petty rule debates -- although I'll second Lord Pendragon's suggestion to have a private discussion with him about the excessive debating. It might be that he lets them happen because he thinks everyone is cool with it. And if he really enjoys 30 minute rule debates, just tell him "That's cool, but the next time it happens I'm leaving the room for a stretch."

Smoke 'em if ya got 'em, or bring a book to read.

I don't know ... the more I think about it I wonder if I'm the problem.

I think the only problem is your current indecisiveness.

 

[Libramarian]

Short answer is try playing a game whose business model is not based on selling the players packs of rules.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I have run into the same problem as you did and what we ended up doing was limiting the books allowed for the players to basically the PHB and DMG. This gives much less room for broken combinations and takes the focus away from the splat books to the game itself.

In addition, every power, spell or whatever is subject to removal if they take too much room in the game. So, if a spell looks overpowered, both the player and DM knows it will get taken out if used too much. If you know this before starting the game it works out quite nicely.

I am a bit of a munchkin myself and I actually prefer DM's that play it like this. I have DM'ed one campaign like this and I ended up adding small modifications to the characters like giving the "gimped" summoner wizard that couldn't used evocations the ability to spontanous cast conjuration/summoning spells. In other words, if a player wanted to take a non-optimized path, I often added some extra spice to make up for it.

When it comes to rules discussions we got tired of the hour-long nonsense as well. We ended up with giving the DM the power to basically say: "This is how I rule it now". After the game the player and dm looks at the rule together and discuss how it should be ruled in the future. Most players are reasonable when they know a ruling is just made to get the game moving again and not because it's the right one according to the letter of the rules.

Anyway, it's something you should dicuss with your players outside the normal game night and come to an agreement on how to make changes to your game to make it roll along at a good pace.